Dems table campaign finance reform

Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a target of Democrats, had little incentive to break with her party on the measure.
John Shinkle

A Senate official confirmed that the bill could be revisited after the recess, adding that “it is also a good debate for us in the fall,” since Democrats would be able to characterize themselves as fighting for increased transparency in election spending, after passing a Wall Street reform bill that drew minimal Republican support.

The other wild card in Congress’s push on the bill, which aims to temper the effects of a spring Supreme Court decision lifting many of the restrictions on corporate giving, is the White House. President Barack Obama was slow to throw his weight behind the bill, making a last-ditch effort Monday by challenging Republicans in a Rose Garden address.

But with continued administration support, the bill could find new life in the fall. In a policy statement Tuesday, the White House stood strongly behind the principles of DISCLOSE, which supporters believe implements new transparency guidelines within the parameters of the Supreme Court decision.

“This bill is not perfect. For example, the administration would have preferred no exemptions. But by providing for unprecedented transparency, S. 3628 takes great strides to hold corporations that participate in the nation’s elections accountable to the American people,” the statement read. “As this is a matter of urgent importance, the administration urges the Senate to approve the DISCLOSE Act and looks forward to working with both houses of Congress promptly to produce a final bill for the president’s signature.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the bill’s chief Senate sponsor, had altered the House version of the legislation late last week to attempt to lure Republican votes. The new Senate language sought to make the treatment of unions and corporations more balanced. The tweaked legislation would require corporations, unions and advocacy groups to reveal their roles in political ads or mailings in the closing months of a campaign. Companies that receive Troubled Asset Relief Program funding and smaller government contractors would also be barred from underwriting “electioneering communications.”

But further changes seem unlikely, as Senate and House Democratic officials said “Schumer has gone the extra mile” trying to generate a bill that “could get Republicans on board.”

GOP aides said delaying the date the bill would go into effect — so that it wouldn’t govern the upcoming election — might attract some Republican votes. Snowe, however, told POLITICO that such a concession would not earn her vote.

Despite the daunting reality, independent groups lobbying for the DISCLOSE Act remain hopeful that something will get done eventually.

“Several Republican members of Congress have a long history of supporting transparency when it comes to money in politics, though none in the Senate displayed that sense today. The issue is not whether there is a Republican member of Congress who supports disclosure — there are plenty — but whether one or more of these public officials are willing to stand for this principle against the wishes of national Republican Party leaders,” said Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy group. “The DISCLOSE Act will not fade away.”

It's difficult to fathom how full disclosure can bring about a more equal playing feild. Corporations will still have the ability to out spend Unions and other populist organizations wether they are listed in the credits or not. Would this prevent say the Republicans establishing a fund raising organizationa and calling it "People for a better Democracy" or something equally misleading and producing muck raking campaign ads ? Just because it's divulged where the money comes from doesn't stop the money from comming. I would agree it should be policy that all funding be transparant. Anyone should be able to find out who is contributing and how much just as a matter of course. I think this information can be acquired in most cases and in other cases if someone wants to do a little digging it can be exposed. So, correct me if I'm wrong , this bill would merely require everyone to be publicly listed who contributed and how much they gave ? Seems like this information should be available anyway : Is it just a question of easier access ? Or is the purpose of this to combat misinformation ? Is it assumed that if you have to put your name on it you will be less likely to get creative with the facts and truth ? Will this bill stop 'under the table' contributions and/ or favors being exchanged ? Will it force everything above board or drive slush funds deeper underground ? Do candidates have to account for every penny now ? Would the bill force them to do so ? Is the bill designed to help the public more readily discern between false advertising and sloganing which side a campaign ad is comming down on ? Isn't it pretty easy to tell who's backing a candidate ? If a candidate is spewing right wing rhetoric you can pretty much assume there are some right leaning corporations and special interest groups involved. If they want to repeal health care you might assume there are some insurance company donations. Against a comprehensive energy bill ; probably some oil compnaies and utility companies etc. Does it help me to know who exactly they are and how much exactly they are contributing ? Maybe. The democrats are pushing to exempt unions and some special interest groups from reporting and being disclosed. But it's unlikely a bill like this will pass unless everyone has to disclose. Some backers on the Democrat side are equally repugnant to some voters. So it could end up being a "shoot yourself in the foot" edeavor for the Democrats. So, who is this for then ? What makes this a vital issue for voters ?

My concern is that this is just another "window dressing" bill designed to check off another item on the Democrat agenda without actually addressing the issue. For me ; "Campaign Finance Reform " has to address the money ! Elections shouldn't be about who can attract the most money and out spend the opposition. They should be about issues and solutions. Campaing Finance Reform should endeavor to take the money out of politics. It's gotten way out of hand. It's become a big business : An industry. An industry without regulation ; I might add. It's been repeated ad nauseum that politicians are more worried about where their next campaign contribution is comming from for their next election than about the issues at hand. We should take this element out of the scenario. Now what politician is going to vote to reduce or eliminate the money factor ? It's plain to see that elections can be bought by the highest bidder. We are simply selling our government to the highest bidder. To stop that you have to impliment caps on spending for elections or better yet limit the amount any one individual or group can give. For example: It should become law that no one can contribute more than $50. per candidate; per election. That includes the now 'coporate entity with personhood status". Public media access should be made available at low or no cost for candidates to debate and/or express their message (equal opportunity). No candidate should be able to use their own money for campaigning. This would address the rich elite just buying elections. You have to raise the money from the constiuency. Money raised in excess of the cap would be put into a general fund to finance future elections. The cap would be determined by what's reasonable and customary and designed to limit lavish expenditures. A candidate could apply to the general fund ; after any run off (when it's down to the two top candidates); if it can be shown they are below the cap in contributions. This could be in the form of a loan they would have to repay. Something like this has to be considered or else "Citizens United" is not effectively delt with. Limiting and capping would prevent corporations and other entities from hedging their bet and contributing to both sides or candidates as well. Corporations spend billions a year on campaign contributions to gain political leverage and access and to hopfully influence legislature in their favor. What if they instead took those billions and invested it in research and development and putting people to work ? Gosh ; what a concept !

It would be naieve to think that something like this could actually happen but it's clear that something like what I've described has to happen in order to truely call it "Campaign Finance Reform". Like " Health Care Reform " turned out to be " Health 'Insurance' Reform" and didn't come close to what we'd hoped for: Campaign Finance Reform is shaping up to be a similar event. Instead of repeatedly electing from the 'elite political class' of rich people who have power and connections ; elections should be open to anyone and everyone. Otherwise we keep electing people who put the 'political class' first and focus constantly on their re-elections rather than maybe someone with a unique approach or novel idea that might actually solve some problems. The thing is ; that would be asking this 'elite class' to in essence cut their own throat for the sake of democracy and that's not likely to happen.

It's difficult to fathom how full disclosure can bring about a more equal playing feild. Corporations will still have the ability to out spend Unions and other populist organizations wether they are listed in the credits or not. Would this prevent say the Republicans establishing a fund raising organizationa and calling it "People for a better Democracy" or something equally misleading and producing muck raking campaign ads ? Just because it's divulged where the money comes from doesn't stop the money from comming. I would agree it should be policy that all funding be transparant. Anyone should be able to find out who is contributing and how much just as a matter of course. I think this information can be acquired in most cases and in other cases if someone wants to do a little digging it can be exposed. So, correct me if I'm wrong , this bill would merely require everyone to be publicly listed who contributed and how much they gave ? Seems like this information should be available anyway : Is it just a question of easier access ? Or is the purpose of this to combat misinformation ? Is it assumed that if you have to put your name on it you will be less likely to get creative with the facts and truth ? Will this bill stop 'under the table' contributions and/ or favors being exchanged ? Will it force everything above board or drive slush funds deeper underground ? Do candidates have to account for every penny now ? Would the bill force them to do so ? Is the bill designed to help the public more readily discern between false advertising and sloganing which side a campaign ad is comming down on ? Isn't it pretty easy to tell who's backing a candidate ? If a candidate is spewing right wing rhetoric you can pretty much assume there are some right leaning corporations and special interest groups involved. If they want to repeal health care you might assume there are some insurance company donations. Against a comprehensive energy bill ; probably some oil compnaies and utility companies etc. Does it help me to know who exactly they are and how much exactly they are contributing ? Maybe. The democrats are pushing to exempt unions and some special interest groups from reporting and being disclosed. But it's unlikely a bill like this will pass unless everyone has to disclose. Some backers on the Democrat side are equally repugnant to some voters. So it could end up being a "shoot yourself in the foot" edeavor for the Democrats. So, who is this for then ? What makes this a vital issue for voters ?

My concern is that this is just another "window dressing" bill designed to check off another item on the Democrat agenda without actually addressing the issue. For me ; "Campaign Finance Reform " has to address the money ! Elections shouldn't be about who can attract the most money and out spend the opposition. They should be about issues and solutions. Campaing Finance Reform should endeavor to take the money out of politics. It's gotten way out of hand. It's become a big business : An industry. An industry without regulation ; I might add. It's been repeated ad nauseum that politicians are more worried about where their next campaign contribution is comming from for their next election than about the issues at hand. We should take this element out of the scenario. Now what politician is going to vote to reduce or eliminate the money factor ? It's plain to see that elections can be bought by the highest bidder. We are simply selling our government to the highest bidder. To stop that you have to impliment caps on spending for elections or better yet limit the amount any one individual or group can give. For example: It should become law that no one can contribute more than $50. per candidate; per election. That includes the now 'coporate entity with personhood status". Public media access should be made available at low or no cost for candidates to debate and/or express their message (equal opportunity). No candidate should be able to use their own money for campaigning. This would address the rich elite just buying elections. You have to raise the money from the constiuency. Money raised in excess of the cap would be put into a general fund to finance future elections. The cap would be determined by what's reasonable and customary and designed to limit lavish expenditures. A candidate could apply to the general fund ; after any run off (when it's down to the two top candidates); if it can be shown they are below the cap in contributions. This could be in the form of a loan they would have to repay. Something like this has to be considered or else "Citizens United" is not effectively delt with. Limiting and capping would prevent corporations and other entities from hedging their bet and contributing to both sides or candidates as well. Corporations spend billions a year on campaign contributions to gain political leverage and access and to hopfully influence legislature in their favor. What if they instead took those billions and invested it in research and development and putting people to work ? Gosh ; what a concept !

It would be naieve to think that something like this could actually happen but it's clear that something like what I've described has to happen in order to truely call it "Campaign Finance Reform". Like " Health Care Reform " turned out to be " Health 'Insurance' Reform" and didn't come close to what we'd hoped for: Campaign Finance Reform is shaping up to be a similar event. Instead of repeatedly electing from the 'elite political class' of rich people who have power and connections ; elections should be open to anyone and everyone. Otherwise we keep electing people who put the 'political class' first and focus constantly on their re-elections rather than maybe someone with a unique approach or novel idea that might actually solve some problems. The thing is ; that would be asking this 'elite class' to in essence cut their own throat for the sake of democracy and that's not likely to happen.

It's difficult to fathom how full disclosure can bring about a more equal playing feild. Corporations will still have the ability to out spend Unions and other populist organizations wether they are listed in the credits or not. Would this prevent say the Republicans establishing a fund raising organizationa and calling it "People for a better Democracy" or something equally misleading and producing muck raking campaign ads ? Just because it's divulged where the money comes from doesn't stop the money from comming. I would agree it should be policy that all funding be transparant. Anyone should be able to find out who is contributing and how much just as a matter of course. I think this information can be acquired in most cases and in other cases if someone wants to do a little digging it can be exposed. So, correct me if I'm wrong , this bill would merely require everyone to be publicly listed who contributed and how much they gave ? Seems like this information should be available anyway : Is it just a question of easier access ? Or is the purpose of this to combat misinformation ? Is it assumed that if you have to put your name on it you will be less likely to get creative with the facts and truth ? Will this bill stop 'under the table' contributions and/ or favors being exchanged ? Will it force everything above board or drive slush funds deeper underground ? Do candidates have to account for every penny now ? Would the bill force them to do so ? Is the bill designed to help the public more readily discern between false advertising and sloganing which side a campaign ad is comming down on ? Isn't it pretty easy to tell who's backing a candidate ? If a candidate is spewing right wing rhetoric you can pretty much assume there are some right leaning corporations and special interest groups involved. If they want to repeal health care you might assume there are some insurance company donations. Against a comprehensive energy bill ; probably some oil compnaies and utility companies etc. Does it help me to know who exactly they are and how much exactly they are contributing ? Maybe. The democrats are pushing to exempt unions and some special interest groups from reporting and being disclosed. But it's unlikely a bill like this will pass unless everyone has to disclose. Some backers on the Democrat side are equally repugnant to some voters. So it could end up being a "shoot yourself in the foot" edeavor for the Democrats. So, who is this for then ? What makes this a vital issue for voters ?

My concern is that this is just another "window dressing" bill designed to check off another item on the Democrat agenda without actually addressing the issue. For me ; "Campaign Finance Reform " has to address the money ! Elections shouldn't be about who can attract the most money and out spend the opposition. They should be about issues and solutions. Campaing Finance Reform should endeavor to take the money out of politics. It's gotten way out of hand. It's become a big business : An industry. An industry without regulation ; I might add. It's been repeated ad nauseum that politicians are more worried about where their next campaign contribution is comming from for their next election than about the issues at hand. We should take this element out of the scenario. Now what politician is going to vote to reduce or eliminate the money factor ? It's plain to see that elections can be bought by the highest bidder. We are simply selling our government to the highest bidder. To stop that you have to impliment caps on spending for elections or better yet limit the amount any one individual or group can give. For example: It should become law that no one can contribute more than $50. per candidate; per election. That includes the now 'coporate entity with personhood status". Public media access should be made available at low or no cost for candidates to debate and/or express their message (equal opportunity). No candidate should be able to use their own money for campaigning. This would address the rich elite just buying elections. You have to raise the money from the constiuency. Money raised in excess of the cap would be put into a general fund to finance future elections. The cap would be determined by what's reasonable and customary and designed to limit lavish expenditures. A candidate could apply to the general fund ; after any run off (when it's down to the two top candidates); if it can be shown they are below the cap in contributions. This could be in the form of a loan they would have to repay. Something like this has to be considered or else "Citizens United" is not effectively delt with. Limiting and capping would prevent corporations and other entities from hedging their bet and contributing to both sides or candidates as well. Corporations spend billions a year on campaign contributions to gain political leverage and access and to hopfully influence legislature in their favor. What if they instead took those billions and invested it in research and development and putting people to work ? Gosh ; what a concept !

It would be naieve to think that something like this could actually happen but it's clear that something like what I've described has to happen in order to truely call it "Campaign Finance Reform". Like " Health Care Reform " turned out to be " Health 'Insurance' Reform" and didn't come close to what we'd hoped for: Campaign Finance Reform is shaping up to be a similar event. Instead of repeatedly electing from the 'elite political class' of rich people who have power and connections ; elections should be open to anyone and everyone. Otherwise we keep electing people who put the 'political class' first and focus constantly on their re-elections rather than maybe someone with a unique approach or novel idea that might actually solve some problems. The thing is ; that would be asking this 'elite class' to in essence cut their own throat for the sake of democracy and that's not likely to happen.

It's difficult to fathom how full disclosure can bring about a more equal playing feild. Corporations will still have the ability to out spend Unions and other populist organizations wether they are listed in the credits or not. Would this prevent say the Republicans establishing a fund raising organizationa and calling it "People for a better Democracy" or something equally misleading and producing muck raking campaign ads ? Just because it's divulged where the money comes from doesn't stop the money from comming. I would agree it should be policy that all funding be transparant. Anyone should be able to find out who is contributing and how much just as a matter of course. I think this information can be acquired in most cases and in other cases if someone wants to do a little digging it can be exposed. So, correct me if I'm wrong , this bill would merely require everyone to be publicly listed who contributed and how much they gave ? Seems like this information should be available anyway : Is it just a question of easier access ? Or is the purpose of this to combat misinformation ? Is it assumed that if you have to put your name on it you will be less likely to get creative with the facts and truth ? Will this bill stop 'under the table' contributions and/ or favors being exchanged ? Will it force everything above board or drive slush funds deeper underground ? Do candidates have to account for every penny now ? Would the bill force them to do so ? Is the bill designed to help the public more readily discern between false advertising and sloganing which side a campaign ad is comming down on ? Isn't it pretty easy to tell who's backing a candidate ? If a candidate is spewing right wing rhetoric you can pretty much assume there are some right leaning corporations and special interest groups involved. If they want to repeal health care you might assume there are some insurance company donations. Against a comprehensive energy bill ; probably some oil compnaies and utility companies etc. Does it help me to know who exactly they are and how much exactly they are contributing ? Maybe. The democrats are pushing to exempt unions and some special interest groups from reporting and being disclosed. But it's unlikely a bill like this will pass unless everyone has to disclose. Some backers on the Democrat side are equally repugnant to some voters. So it could end up being a "shoot yourself in the foot" edeavor for the Democrats. So, who is this for then ? What makes this a vital issue for voters ?

My concern is that this is just another "window dressing" bill designed to check off another item on the Democrat agenda without actually addressing the issue. For me ; "Campaign Finance Reform " has to address the money ! Elections shouldn't be about who can attract the most money and out spend the opposition. They should be about issues and solutions. Campaing Finance Reform should endeavor to take the money out of politics. It's gotten way out of hand. It's become a big business : An industry. An industry without regulation ; I might add. It's been repeated ad nauseum that politicians are more worried about where their next campaign contribution is comming from for their next election than about the issues at hand. We should take this element out of the scenario. Now what politician is going to vote to reduce or eliminate the money factor ? It's plain to see that elections can be bought by the highest bidder. We are simply selling our government to the highest bidder. To stop that you have to impliment caps on spending for elections or better yet limit the amount any one individual or group can give. For example: It should become law that no one can contribute more than $50. per candidate; per election. That includes the now 'coporate entity with personhood status". Public media access should be made available at low or no cost for candidates to debate and/or express their message (equal opportunity). No candidate should be able to use their own money for campaigning. This would address the rich elite just buying elections. You have to raise the money from the constiuency. Money raised in excess of the cap would be put into a general fund to finance future elections. The cap would be determined by what's reasonable and customary and designed to limit lavish expenditures. A candidate could apply to the general fund ; after any run off (when it's down to the two top candidates); if it can be shown they are below the cap in contributions. This could be in the form of a loan they would have to repay. Something like

The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt by Democrats to protect their vulnerable incumbents by suppressing free speech. Why else are unions, Planned Parenthood, and the Sierra Club exempted? The Democrats are on one side, their side, not the American people's side.

Another attempt to SUPPRESS free speech by the Democrats has been defeated for now. They will always be trying to shut it down because they HATE the Bill of Rights and see the Constitution as an IMPEDIMENT to their absolute power. They will try again.

OMG! I just read the other 12 comments. It's clearly a waste of my time to comment on your page given the extreme comments. It's also good to be reminded that Politico should be read keeping in mind its Republican, right-leaning bias. Always good to know what the opposition is putting out there.

Another attempt to SUPPRESS free speech by the Democrats has been defeated for now. They will always be trying to shut it down because they HATE the Bill of Rights and see the Constitution as an IMPEDIMENT to their absolute power. They will try again.ReplyQuoteReport Abuse

Great post, Kalamere! Thank the Gods that Repubs are saying NO to these slimy attempts to control everything! If people don't remember that in November, and vote accordingly, a pox on them all.

Lets hold the corrupt cluckie schumer fran and dodd accountable for their corrupt actions with freddi=fannie-banking. I never borrowed a dollare from corrupt politicans. Banks with verification has alway laoned me money for homes and business and I paid it back schumer and his coherced help of obam forced banks to loan money to unqualified applicants.

I don't TRUAT obama and the corrupt obamas crats with anything.

Throw the obama crats out in Nov and impeach obama in Janurary. I'm sure between shumer and rangel they can find obama a job that fits his corruption.

This DISCLOSE Bill does nothing but EXEMPT unions and other Democrat-leaning groups from having to "abide" by the campaign finance rules! I cannot even believe the Democrats brought this bill up to vote on, just prior to a MAJOR election! You CANNOT "exempt" only those groups that normally vote for your base! How un-ethical can this party get?

. . . . In case they hadn't noticed - - we have important elections in the FALL. . . . .

It sure would have been a good thing to take care of these problem BEFORE then.

And while they were at it - - they should have also address WHY our Polls places

haven't addressed the "Motor Voter" laws and purged the dead records so they

can't be used AGAIN, to defraud our voting system ! ....How convenient for the Political Parties.

FROM ARTICLE (above) ....."A Senate official confirmed that the bill could be revisited after the recess, adding that “it is also a good debate for us in the fall,” since Democrats would be able to characterize themselves as fighting for increased transparency in election spending, after passing a Wall Street reform bill that drew minimal Republican support."

Our Fathers who art in Washington , Unhallowed be thy name (Barack , Nancy , Harry) the unholy trinity Thy Socialist kingdom come, Thy Spending be done In debt from birth to Heaven Give us this day our daily bread and help China forgive us our debts as we forgive the Liberals Lead us not into inflation And deliver us from the P C Police For they‘ve ruined the Kingdom and the Glory , Forever Amen